| hamronepal |
Posted
on 02-Feb-03 06:38 PM
By Bal Krishna Basnet
KATHMANDU, Feb 1 : Chief Commissioner of the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) Surya Nath Upadhyay has alleged that the courts have failed to gauge the gravity of the cases coming up for trial from the Commission. "This, incidentally," he said, "is ruling out cooperation between the two institutions."
The justices have billed the latest allegations, as something which can affect the outcome of the dozens of cases related to abuse of authority and hence objectionable. They have said that courts will look for the factual ground and not language and motive before deciding the cases.
In fact, this came to the fore at an interaction programme on Saturday, during which Upadhyay argued that the courts have not followed the language in which the cases are written. This was enough to draw the ire of justices who had come to attend the programme.
"We do not give verdict basing our views on the language used in the charge sheet. We go by facts and evidence," was the common refrain from justices attending the programme. But this did not deter CIAA boss to stick to his view that "justices have overlooked the language of the cases."
Meanwhile, Chairman of the Special Court Top Bahadur Magar said that the allegations and counter-allegations were unfortunate, since the court has yet to give out verdict in the cases referred to by the CIAA boss.
Saying that the courts go by the evidence and not the language per se, Magar said, "In fact I would like to draw the attention of the commissioners at the language the charge sheets have come with." He also advised the ombudsman body to refrain from filing cases before drawing up foolproof charge sheets.
"We face a tough time while giving out desired verdicts in cases, which have seen tardy investigation. Any lapse on the part of the justices to overlook facts and evidence, leaves enough room to malign the prestige of the courts," he added.
Saying that the courts are committed to stand by the commitment to punish corrupt elements he further said, "Some cases are just full of charges at the accused but are not strong in evidence. This often gives a tough time for the judges."
It may be said that although the CIAA had suggested arraignment in the cases of Khum Bahadur Khadka, Chiranjivi Wagle, and Jaya Prakash Gupta 3/4 all former ministers 3/4 the court had however released them on bail. The CIAA had subsequently moved the court saying the court asked for a paltry bail amount.
Moreover, Upadhyaya also said that since corruption cannot be fought out by CIAA alone, there is need on the part of the Special Court to shed the traditional mentality in the interest of transparency in public life. The view was contested by Magar.
Yet another justice of the Special Court Damodar Prasad Sharma said, "It does not behove them to say that we at the Special Court do not understand the language." He also said that if the CIAA had done intensive research into the cases in question, they ought to have arrested the concerned accused soon after.
In fact, Sharma was of the view that CIAA commissioners would not be themselves satisfied, just in the event they are asked to look into the cases of corruption, from the viewpoint of a sitting judge.
"There is no room to say that courts have not followed the language. This reflects badly on the CIAA itself," Sharma further said.
Speaking at the programme organised by Transparency International and Judicial Council, Supreme Court Justice Hari Prasad Sharma said that while the court is always in favour of stemming corruption, there has not been enough efforts on the part of the ombudsman body. He also flayed the way in which cases are filed.
|
